Not to get all stancily, but I think this speaks to how the parties and terms are painted in the culture. There is no institution independents trust that calls all R's "crazy conservatives" without exception nor has there been 50 years of building "conservative" to be a slur as with "lib".
To take away "D's need to *become* less liberal" when faced with independent voters whose perceptions track reality very loosely seems like the misstep Yglesias is making. If tracking is poor, shifts in the ground truth won't change perceptions much!
sure. I think Stancil is wrong that messaging and the media environment swamps everything. but what it comes down to, to me, is to wonder which is a better way to win votes: should Dems try to shift the electorate's perception of the ideological spectrum, or should they shift themselves right?
(they should *try* to do both, obviously, but I personally think the latter is an easier and better path to electoral success than the former)
I mean has that worked for Starmer? Did it work when D's tried to pivot right on immigration under Biden? Do you have good examples of an explicit rightward policy *shift* within-member that didn't backfire by increasing salience of an issue while also increasing popularity of the R position?
Obama shifted the party right on a number of issues, won two presidential elections and won a number of major liberal policy battles because of it www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/u...
The timing is reversed? Obama ran v liberal against Hilary, as a strong liberal on finance and healthcare v McCain, and won several liberal policy battles. After thermostatic wipeout in the house, ran against Romney as a women-hating financier and won personally while blue dogs failed to recover
You're saying we should run back 2012, I'm saying we should try 2008
Obama (Clinton too!) ran on a much more centrist health care plan in 2008 than the 90s D proposal (the Health Security Act), Obama said he was against gay marriage in 2008 when he was previously for it in 2004, Obama talked tough and was the "deporter in chief" on immigration... probably more!
The big left-side Obama vibe was that he was against the Iraq War, and I'd say that in 2008 that was a stance closer to the median voter than Clinton or other Ds.
It was finance and banking as well, then healthcare. The 90s proposal is not really relevant as it never got anywhere close to off the ground. "Deporter-in-chief" was right before Trump! Obama did not "talk tough" on immigration before 2012 or against Romney. I get the feeling you're younger?
I think this also speaks to the solipsism of the D position. I'm not saying they should start calling themselves more moderate, I'm saying they should make fun of R's for all the many good reasons they should be mocked. You can define your opponent more than yourself.